My social media timelines lit up last week with scores of persons sending me various news items about a lawsuit being filed against 28 wine producers in California claiming that some of their cheaper low-end wines contain dangerously high levels of inorganic arsenic – up to four and five times the maximum amount the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) allows for drinking water. The lawsuit I read names 83 specific low priced wines, most sold for below US$10 per bottle of which about 25 are sold in Jamaica. (Due to local taxes, which doubles the price, these wines end up not being so cheap here.)

What is arsenic?

Arsenic is a naturally occurring metal commonly found in air, food, water and soil. We all have some level of arsenic in our bodies. Arsenic occurs in both organic and inorganic forms; each have major differences in toxicity. High levels of exposure to organic arsenic, commonly present in seafood, are not known to cause harmful health effects. High levels of exposure to inorganic arsenic can cause harmful health effects, including lung and skin cancer, irritation of the digestive tract, skin abnormalities and damage to the peripheral nervous system.

The actual lawsuit itself starts with a history lesson. On the very first page of the 29-page document it states, “Inorganic arsenic is an odourless, colourless, and highly toxic poison known to cause illness and death when ingested by humans. During the Middle Ages, arsenic was a favoured form of intentional poisoning among the privileged classes, primarily because it was both virtually undetectable and extremely lethal (even in trace amounts over time). The deaths of Napoleon Bonaparte, Simon Bolivar, King George III, Francesco De Medici, King Faisal I, and many other prominent historical figures, whose deaths were believed at the time to have other mysterious causes, were all, through the course of history, proven later to have been caused and/or accelerated by arsenic poisoning”.

Should you worry?

The Wine Institute, a California trade group which represents 1,000 California wineries, including 10 of the defendants, calls the claims “false and misleading”. Arsenic is present in drinking water and in a variety of foods. The first time the US Food and Drug Administration set limits for arsenic levels in food or drink was in 2013, when it proposed to limit the amount of inorganic arsenic in apple juice to 10 parts per billion; there is none for wine. US Federal regulations also stipulate 10 parts per billion (ppb) as an acceptable arsenic level for drinking water based on a projected consumption of two litres per person per day, which is what they are measuring the wine against – think about that. Other countries have their regulations – 100 parts per billion in Canada and 200 parts per billion in Europe – 10 to 20 times higher than the drinking water limit in the United States. Considering that most of us should be drinking way more water than wine, should we really concern ourselves with this? For me the answer is NO! Why? I don’t regularly drink most of the wines listed and the arsenic levels are so low that one would have to drink many litres of wine per day to be concerned. It goes without saying that if you are drinking that much wine daily, you will have other problems than a miniscule trace of inorganic arsenic.

The case is ongoing and there is plenty of debate. Consider the fact too, that the company that performed those specific analyses also sells alcohol analysis services. Other independent tests have shown better results. We await the verdict!

Christopher Reckord – Entrepreneur & Wine Enthusiast. Send your questions and comments to creckord@gmail.com. Instagram: @chrisreckord Twitter: @Reckord